RAKESH MORDIA S/O PARASRAM MORDIA LATE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/12965/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02070172202208 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the understanding that the High Court had previously held such notices issued by a JAO, rather than an FAO, to be invalid, referencing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision in the pending SLP concerning Hexaware Technologies Ltd. differed from the High Court's view. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed pursuant to this notice would also stand quashed and set aside. All pending applications were disposed of. The Court explicitly kept open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rakesh Mordia, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention, though not initially taken, was that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The petitioner's counsel indicated a willingness to amend the petition to include this ground. The Revenue acknowledged that the High Court had previously held such notices invalid, citing precedents. The Revenue also informed the Court that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending before the Supreme Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision differed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner, through counsel, indicated that this ground would be taken, arguing that the notice issued by the JAO is not valid. Revenue's contention: The Revenue acknowledged that the High Court had taken a view that such a notice would be invalid, citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue also stated that an SLP was pending in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and sought liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision altered the existing legal position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:36060-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12965/2022 Rakesh Mordia S/o Parasram Mordia Late, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Flat No. G-1, B-60, University Marg, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak Advocate & Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Judgment 08/09/2025

1.

At the outset, Mr. Aditya Vijay states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid because it has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Sandeep Pathak states that this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid and he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:36060-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-12965/2022]

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 27th July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3, has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid.

4.

At the same time, Mr. Sandeep Pathak states that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

5.

Mr. Aditya Vijay states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 27th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

[2025:RJ-JP:36060-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12965/2022]

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

9.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-SEEMA/39

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →